Credentials Committee minority report

[J. J.]

51:70 indicates that the motion to substitute the minority report, it would include any motion growing out of the report; that seems to of substituting a report.  59:24 would generally apply only to the motion to approve the roll, excepting the last line. 

The problem is that 59:23-24 does not differentiate between a credentials committee report and the report of a (standing) committee.  If it did, I think your points would be valid. 

[Burke Balch]

On 8/29/2023 at 6:48 PM, J. J. said:

59:24 would generally apply only to the motion to approve the roll, excepting the last line. 

This claim is refuted by the fact that the first sentence of 59:24, preceding the rules limiting the types of amendments that may be offered, on its face refers to the "report": "the chair, before taking the vote on the adoption of the report, asks, 'Are there any questions on the report?' "  The entirety of 59:24, not just "the last line,"  is, under the plain language of the paragraph, applicable to the credentials committee "report" -- which makes untenable the notion that action on the report can somehow be distinguished from action on the motion to adopt the roll in a manner that allows for preliminary action on the "report" including consideration of a substitute for the roll recommended by a minority report that is not subject to the amendment limitations set forth in 59:24.

On 8/29/2023 at 6:48 PM, J. J. said:

The problem is that 59:23-24 does not differentiate between a credentials committee report and the report of a (standing) committee.  If it did, I think your points would be valid. 

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, such a claim fails to take account of Principle of Interpretation 3, "A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it."  56:68(3) goes on to explain, "It is not practical to state a rule in its full detail every time it is referred to.  General statements of rules are seldom strictly correct in every possible application. The specific statement of the rule that gives the details applying to the particular case must always be examined." 

The claim that the general rule pertaining to minority reports in 51:70 must  somehow apply to consideration of the report of a convention Credentials Committee unless  the paragraphs specifically applicable to the credentials committee report explicitly state that 51:70  does not apply is directly contrary to 56:68(3). It is enough under 56:68(3) that the rules specifically limiting amendments in 59:24 supersede the general rule in 51:70 to the extent of the conflict.

[J. J.]

On 9/4/2023 at 11:08 AM, Burke Balch said:

This claim is refuted by the fact that the first sentence of 59:24, preceding the rules limiting the types of amendments that may be offered, on its face refers to the "report": "the chair, before taking the vote on the adoption of the report, asks, 'Are there any questions on the report?' "  The entirety of 59:24, not just "the last line,"  is, under the plain language of the paragraph, applicable to the credentials committee "report" -- which makes untenable the notion that action on the report can somehow be distinguished from action on the motion to adopt the roll in a manner that allows for preliminary action on the "report" including consideration of a substitute for the roll recommended by a minority report that is not subject to the amendment limitations set forth in 59:24.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, such a claim fails to take account of Principle of Interpretation 3, "A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it."  56:68(3) goes on to explain, "It is not practical to state a rule in its full detail every time it is referred to.  General statements of rules are seldom strictly correct in every possible application. The specific statement of the rule that gives the details applying to the particular case must always be examined." 

The claim that the general rule pertaining to minority reports in 51:70 must  somehow apply to consideration of the report of a convention Credentials Committee unless  the paragraphs specifically applicable to the credentials committee report explicitly state that 51:70  does not apply is directly contrary to 56:68(3). It is enough under 56:68(3) that the rules specifically limiting amendments in 59:24 supersede the general rule in 51:70 to the extent of the conflict.

51:70 is the specific statement, however; specifically a minority report can be substituted for the full report. 

59:24 does not extend to the specific case of substituting the report.  That is where the problem exists. 

That does not change who can vote on the substituted report.  59:24 governs who can vote on the substitute, but not if the substitute can be offered.   

[Burke Balch]

51:70 applies to minority reports regarding committees generally; the rules regarding Credentials Committees in conventions are more specific.

At this point, I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree. If all that I and others have written and cited still has not proved persuasive,  I doubt anything will. To be clear, with respect, I am convinced that all of the arguments suggesting that a substitute recommended in a minority report can supersede or evade the limits on amendments provided in 59:24 have been definitively refuted.

[J. J.]

On 9/4/2023 at 5:58 PM, Burke Balch said:

51:70 applies to minority reports regarding committees generally; the rules regarding Credentials Committees in conventions are more specific.

At this point, I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree. If all that I and others have written and cited still has not proved persuasive,  I doubt anything will. To be clear, with respect, I am convinced that all of the arguments suggesting that a substitute recommended in a minority report can supersede or evade the limits on amendments provided in 59:24 have been definitively refuted.

I would agree if either 51:70 would exempt Credentials Committee reports or especially if 59:24 included a reference to minority reports from the Credentials Committee.  The lack of either makes the claim of a specific statement yielding to a general one incredible. 

There is no disagreement that 59:24 would permit only those  people currently on the roll of delegates to vote on any motion relating to the report.  There is also no disagreement that a substitute for a committee report should not be able to provide a new roll of delegates in multiple delegations.  Where there is disagreement is that the text, as currently worded, actually does prohibit the substitution of a minority Credentials Committee report.